To say it isn't worth working full time with young kids unless you earn very well?

[Karma1387]

I have done a few posts recently and on a couple its come up frequently how insane it is to give up work/pension etc when having children which made me really think am I being unreasonable and should I try to go back to full time work after DC2 maternity leave.

I went through finances today to look into my partner taking a paycut due to wanting to get him off nights for his health and then looked at how much better/ worse off we would be if I then went and found a full time job.

I was honestly shocked how much worse off we would be with him taking a paycut to come off nights and me finding a full time job and putting the kids into childcare. We would be about £750 short each month. We do have a bit of debt which would mean we were only £250 short but I can't understand where the logic/motivation is to go back to full time work whilst kids are young if you are worse off or break even.

I would need to earn 40k in order to break even. For people who aren't in high earning professions I just can't understand how they afford to work full time and put kids into childcare. Even when the kids hit school age with before and after school care plus school holidays we would only be a little over breaking even if I worked full time!

I understand people talk about pensions but on a 24k salary (assuming you didn't work your way up) the pension at 67 would only be 5k a year. So what is the point really?

AIBU to say it really isn't worth working full time with kids (that require childcare) unless you are earning a very good salary?

I totally agree. When my DS was one and we weren't entitled to any funded hours i chose not to return to my job. I worked part time and earned £15k before tax, 3 days of nursery would have cost over £13k. We had no family childcare and luckily my DH is quite a high earner. It just didn't make sense for our family for me to return to work! I also didn't even like my job so it's not like it would have been a break from my child.

By placing limits on your options, I mean things like: not considering any changes for your partner other than different shifts with unsociable hours; assuming you can only get minimum wage work in any other sector, when you have management experience; dismissing key school-hours jobs because you don’t like state education.

I think the backdrop of “mums are responsible for childcare” contributes to all manner of shitty situations for women: I can’t be the only woman to take my engagement ring off when interviewing in my 20s because of the (lazy) assumption that I’d be off having babies 5 mins later and therefore safer to hire a man, for example.

It isn’t a coincidence that women tend to be in lower paid roles and are therefore the ones that will reduce/stop working to care for children almost by default. But that isn’t going to change if women keep reducing/stopping work to care for children. It’s a vicious circle.

Once again, some women want to be with their children.

It’s not a vicious circle to not want to climb the corporate ladder if we want to be with our children. This enforced narrative by other women is extremely toxic.

The big issue is that we apparently have a choice but other women will call us bad feminists if we don’t pick the stereotypically ‘male choice’.

The state education one is very valid. 1 the pay isnt much more than I earn now. 2 how can you be a TA in a classroom making kids do things you dont agree with? Thats very hypocrital and 3 I would still be paying for childcare.

My partner would struggle to get the same wage he is on in a different sector. Even most other companies in the sector pay significantly less than his current employer. He has no office experience etc so whilst he may have managerial experience I dont think that is something another sector is going to view as good enough if he has no office, clerical or sector specific experience. They definetly aren't going to pay him 50k+ a year.

Similar with me. Whilst I have manager experience (although only a year) I dont have office, clerical or sector specific experience which could land me a 30-40k a year job. Even the minimum wage ones ask for admin experience.

So I don't think its me putting blocks up that dont need to be there. The job market sucks as do wages. Getting a high paying job without relevant experience is a very unrealistic expectation.

What core moral and philosophical values would you be contravening by getting kids to colour within the lines and learn to spell, and what core moral and philosophical values does working for a supermarket, with all their issues, definitely not contravene?!

And yes, getting a high paying job without experience is absolutely unrealistic. But you’re resigning yourself to a lifetime of low pay and then low income as a pensioner if you don’t make any changes, or plans for changes, now.

Its not about that. I have a 5 year old nephew sitting in a classroom learning fractions and factoring and decimals. Persoanally I think thats just too young for such structured education. I also dont agree with classes of 30 odd kids.

So its not about values or morals. Its about fundamentally not agreeing with such young learning and massive classes.

But as I already stated its irrelevant as it would still require childcare which with a low wage such as teaching assistant wouldn't be worth going full time for.

Starting a minimum wage full time now and going into 30k worth of debt cannot be a better option than waiting until the kids go to school. That 30k in debt would outstrip any benefit to pensions or promotions etc.

Reading another thread about children being abused and raped in nursery, quite frankly why any parent would put their children at risk for pennies is beyond belief. Yes, we know parents work to keep a roof over their heads, but thats where planning ahead comes in or accept many will drop out while children are small, or claim top ups/ benefits until their kids are older. Those who get no financial benefit to working can at least ensure their children are safe.
If you can't afford to drop hours/ off for a while, can you afford children?
30+ years ago in my circles and location, mums had at most p/t fitting around dads hours or were sahm, childcare was scarce. Childminder or montessori was about it. All the local kids went with parents to parent and toddler groups up till 3, then playgroup 3-5.
We all know biggest risk to children is within their families, but why add to risk.

And what are those mums doing now, the ones who had no income? Unless they had a high earning husband to whom they are still married, or are independently wealthy, they will be very possibly be in poverty. It certainly isn't about earning "pennies" either. The OP isn't married so will be vulnerable too as no claim on her partner's assets.
30 years ago was 1996, not 1970, there were a lot of mums working, nurseries and child minders were normal.
Irrelevant to the OP anyway what happened in that illusory golden age when mums survived with "housekeeping" and Tupperware parties.
As you say, kids are far more at risk at home,
Especially, I would imagine, with a mum who is totally dependent on a man.

@TwoTuesdaywhere we were that was the options even in the 90s. No idea what most are doing now, we moved to town. One was a farmers wife, one a business man, one a scientist, only businessmans kids went to montessori, 3 others were labourers, or warehouse. One was traveller family. Unless they changed direction probably similar now. If you live in an area with limited options you do what pays bills and is best for your family. Pride doesn't pay bills. At least the kids were safe not left with some underpaid and potentially abusive 'nursery' worker because of equality hiring.

I got the impression you were struggling and then suddenly it is about private school. 🙄

We are struggling at the moment. Private primary school is a possible option due to family help and it being a small school with low fees. Its by no means decided but as someone whos kids went to private school posted I thought I would ask the question as my partner isnt keen on homeschooling.

Almost 50 years ago both of my parents were working full time with 2 small kids……..

Almost 70 years ago my grandparents were both working full time with 4 young kids……..

LOL the original point was about having a PARENT at home which you and others are sidestepping and derailing by picking on posters who've said mum by default. Which may be wrong but wasn't the question at hand.

Thank you so much for coming back almost 2 months later with that.

As is usual with threads, the discussion moves on over a number of posts. There is no MN rule that all posts must only relate to the initial question asked.

Maybe your radar is more faulty than royal. 🤷🏻‍♀️

(and that so many other posters defaulted to “mum” is certainly worth discussing, and why do that elsewhere?)

If your husband/partner can afford to support you staying home, then that’s great. Weigh up the options.

OP are you married? If you aren't, I'd consider the implications of losing out on those pension contributions and you were to split up. You wouldn't have any claim on your partner's pension and you'd have sacrificed your own.

Are you saying that with both yours and your partners income combined that you would be making an overall loss/incuring debt as a family by needing to pay for childcare?

If so, then no that's not sustainable

People on these threads always seem to assume that every woman is destined to get divorced and be left in poverty. How often does that actually happen in reality? It's a risk like anything else. A few years not working while kids are young really isn't a big deal.

I earn/earned well and don’t regret for one minute working part time when my DC were young.

Those are memories I’ll have for life, I would have regretted having less time with them in favour of the corporate slog.